Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1938
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Represented by its Regional Manager, Trichirappalli - Appellant
Versus
The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tiruchirappalli & Another - Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 14356 of 2014 & M.P.(MD) Nos. 1 of 2014 & 1 of 2015 & W.M.P.(MD) No. 10307 of 2017
Decided On : 17-06-2022
For the Petitioner:G. Mohan Kumar Advocate. For the Respondents:R2, M/s. T. Banumathy Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that higher qualification alone is not a sufficient criterion for granting promotion, and promotions are based on departmental tests, seniority, and vacancy.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Industrial Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2A, Section 2(k) - The court discussed the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly Section 2A and Section 2(k), and emphasized that the higher qualification alone is not sufficient for considering an employee for promotion. The court held that promotion is based on departmental tests, seniority, and vacancy, and not solely on higher educational qualifications.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the promotion of an employee based on his higher educational qualification. The employee claimed that he should have been promoted as a Junior Assistant retrospectively based on his B.A. degree, while the management contended that promotions were based on seniority and vacancy, not on higher educational qualifications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the industrial dispute was raised belatedly and was hit by the principles of laches. It also held that the individual employee's claim for promotion under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act was not maintainable. Additionally, the court emphasized that higher qualification alone is not a criterion for granting promotion.
Issues: The issues included the belated raising of the industrial dispute, the maintainability of the individual employee's claim for promotion, and the criteria for granting promotion based on higher educational qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles of laches, the interpretation of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the legal principle that higher qualification alone is not sufficient for promotion.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the Labour Court award was set aside.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Award, dated 31.01.2013, in I.D. No.01 of 2005 on the file of the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the impugned Award, dated 31.01.2013, in I.D. No.01 of 2005 on the file of the 1st respondent herein.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the second respondent, namely V.Ganeshan, was appointed as Seasonal Bill Clerk on consolidated pay of R.200/- per month on 18.02.1976 and later he was ousted from service from 05.03.1976. Later on, his name was sponsored by the employment exchange and he was appointed as Helper in the Direct Procurement Centre on consolidated pay of Rs. 200/- per month on 10.08.1976. The prescribed qualification for the said post is SSLC pass. His services were regularized and he was given time scale of pay from 01.10.1977 and he was later promoted as Junior Assistant in the year 1983. He retired from service on 31.12.2005 on attaining superannuation. The second respondent claimed graduate allowance and produced his B.A. Degree certificate, dated 31.03.1979, wherein, it was certified that Ganesan has completed the course, vide the examinations held on September 1973. The same was recorded in the service book on 01.09.1984 and he was paid the said graduate allowances from 1984 onwards. The second respondent submitted petition to the Regional Manager, TNCSE on 27.02.1989, claiming that he had higher qualification even before his appointment and seeking promotion on par with others who were appointed between 1975 to 1977 and who were given promotions as Junior Assistant in the year 1977 on the basis of higher educational qualification. The Regional Manager by his proceedings, dated 18.08.1989, rejected his claim on the ground that promotions were given to all on the basis of their seniority in the available vacancy and not on the basis of their higher educational qualification as alleged. Aggrieved over the same, petitioner has submitted a petition to the head office of TNCSC at Chennai in the year 1990 and the same was rejected on the ground that no promotions were given based on the educational qualifications. When the industrial dispute was raised by the Association on behalf of the second respondent, the negotiations failed. Thereafter, I.D.No.1 of 2005 was filed.
3. The management filed a detailed counter stating that the petition is not maintainable and the same is filed on erroneous ground seeking promotion. The corporation also submitted that no employee was granted promotion based on their higher education qualification. The employees were granted promotion based on the seniority. Moreover, the present dispute was raised belatedly and necessary parties were also not impleaded. However, the Labour Court has passed an order on 31.01.2013, allowing the industrial dispute and directed the Corporation to confer all the promotions based on the higher educational qualification and to disburse all monetary benefits. Aggrieved over the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. The second respondent submitted written arguments. The second respondent has submitted that the ground of laches will not arise, since the second respondent is fighting for his right from 1987 onwards and his mercy petition was on 27.02.1989, then he has raised an I.D. under Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act and continued to prosecute the case diligently. Therefore, there is no delay. The contention of the second respondent is that at the time of appointing in the post itself, the petitioner has the qualification on B.A. degree and it was entered in his service register. Later, on without any notice and without assigning any reason, the entry was cancelled by the management. The contention of the second respondent is that all the persons who were appointed from 1975 to
